Protecting people from themselves…
Watching the response to the current COVID-19 pandemic as I write this, the many and varied ways that restrictions have (or have not) been put in place, to me it all boils down to this question: how do we protect people from themselves and their fellow citizens, whilst giving them sufficient freedom?
This is a challenge all governments face worldwide, not just during a pandemic such as we are experiencing now, these challenges existed before COVID-19 and will continue once this pandemic exists only in the history books.
The ways in which this challenge is, or isn’t, tackled, often depends on the nature of the challenge.
Here are a few examples from the country in which I live, Australia, where our government has put in place some measures to attempt to protect people from themselves and/or other citizens before this pandemic, which I hope will illustrate what I’m talking about here.
In 1973, it became illegal to travel in most motor vehicles in Australia without wearing a seatbelt. The data on motor vehicle crashes shows that utilising a seatbelt helps prevent the driver and any passengers from more severe injuries and potential death.
In 1968, it became illegal to drive a motor vehicle in Australia with a blood alcohol level above a certain level, however there was no provision for checking the alcohol level of drivers unless they had been involved in an crash. It wasn’t until many years later that it became law that any person operating a motor vehicle was subject to a “random” blood alcohol test, usually administered initially by a breath test. The data on motor vehicle crashes shows that drivers with a blood alcohol level above 50mg of alcohol in 100cc of blood are significantly more likely to cause a motor vehicle crash. Thus this not only seeks to protect the individuals who may or may not choose to consume alcohol and potentially operate a motor vehicle, but it also seeks to protect other people from the actions of people who would be committing an offense by driving whilst intoxicated.
When it comes to the matter of vaccination against vaccine-preventable illnesses, a different tactic is used. Vaccination is very strongly recommended by all medical professionals, and there are financial rewards for those who do have their children vaccinated on schedule with the recommended vaccines. There are also restrictions on attending childcare or kindergarten for children who have not been vaccinated, unless they have a valid medical exemption. Much like the issue of drink-driving, this is an issue that doesn’t just affect the individual who may or may not be vaccinated, as sufficient numbers of people need to have been vaccinated to provide herd immunity for those who are unable to get vaccinated, and also because no vaccine is 100% effective.
As I write this, some places in Australia have additional restrictions placed upon the people, in the hope of limiting the spread of COVID-19. Some states and territories have travel restrictions limiting the travel of people from other states and territories, and travel to and from other countries is severely restricted. There are regions where the wearing of a face mask while in public is now compulsory, with some exemptions, with financial penalties in place for those who are not exempt. Again, this is about helping protect other people in the community.
Some people vehemently oppose these restrictions, claiming that the government has no right to make these choices on their behalf. Some people also said the same thing about drink driving, seatbelts and vaccinations, indeed some people continue to argue against the measures put in place for these issues. I’ve seen people arguing that they should be able to travel anywhere they wish, as the risks are not unknown. I’ve seen people argue that because there is a miniscule risk involved with vaccination, that people should be free to choose without any pressure put upon them, because “where there is risk, there must be choice”.
In every case above, and in other cases I’m sure you can think of that I have not covered, there is a balance between protecting people from themselves and other members of the community, the the rights of the individuals within that community.
While some of these examples may seem like common sense to many of us, sometimes deciding where to draw that line can be quite difficult. Keep in mind that there can be unintended consequences, one example that comes to mind for me is the prohibition of alcohol in the United States of America in the 1920s and early 1930s.
The intention of this piece is to get you, dear reader, to think about where YOU would draw the line when it comes to protecting people from themselves. Would you let everything be unrestricted, and let people be totally free, potentially leading to them being more likely to be injured or killed by other people? Would you ban smoking? Would you ban gambling? Where would YOU set the line, and do you think that would be realistic, knowing that any restrictions you put in place will have some level of resistance from the people? What are your thoughts on the restrictions that are in place where you are, both as a part of the response to COVID-19, and those that had already been there prior to this pandemic?
